Literature DB >> 27438866

Psychometric Functions of Dual-Task Paradigms for Measuring Listening Effort.

Yu-Hsiang Wu1, Elizabeth Stangl, Xuyang Zhang, Joanna Perkins, Emily Eilers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to characterize the psychometric functions that describe task performance in dual-task listening effort measures as a function of signal to noise ratio (SNR).
DESIGN: Younger adults with normal hearing (YNH, n = 24; experiment 1) and older adults with hearing impairment (n = 24; experiment 2) were recruited. Dual-task paradigms wherein the participants performed a primary speech recognition task simultaneously with a secondary task were conducted at a wide range of SNRs. Two different secondary tasks were used: an easy task (i.e., a simple visual reaction-time task) and a hard task (i.e., the incongruent Stroop test). The reaction time (RT) quantified the performance of the secondary task.
RESULTS: For both participant groups and for both easy and hard secondary tasks, the curves that described the RT as a function of SNR were peak shaped. The RT increased as SNR changed from favorable to intermediate SNRs, and then decreased as SNRs moved from intermediate to unfavorable SNRs. The RT reached its peak (longest time) at the SNRs at which the participants could understand 30 to 50% of the speech. In experiments 1 and 2, the dual-task trials that had the same SNR were conducted in one block. To determine if the peak shape of the RT curves was specific to the blocked SNR presentation order used in these experiments, YNH participants were recruited (n = 25; experiment 3) and dual-task measures, wherein the SNR was varied from trial to trial (i.e., nonblocked), were conducted. The results indicated that, similar to the first two experiments, the RT curves had a peak shape.
CONCLUSIONS: Secondary task performance was poorer at the intermediate SNRs than at the favorable and unfavorable SNRs. This pattern was observed for both YNH and older adults with hearing impairment participants and was not affected by either task type (easy or hard secondary task) or SNR presentation order (blocked or nonblocked). The shorter RT at the unfavorable SNRs (speech intelligibility < 30%) possibly reflects that the participants experienced cognitive overload and/or disengaged themselves from the listening task. The implication of using the dual-task paradigm as a listening effort measure is discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27438866      PMCID: PMC5079765          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000335

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  36 in total

Review 1.  Candidature for and delivery of audiological services: special needs of older people.

Authors:  J Kiessling; M K Pichora-Fuller; S Gatehouse; D Stephens; S Arlinger; T Chisolm; A C Davis; N P Erber; L Hickson; A Holmes; U Rosenhall; H von Wedel
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids.

Authors:  Mathias Hällgren; Birgitta Larsby; Björn Lyxell; Stig Arlinger
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.117

Review 3.  An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: adaptive gain and optimal performance.

Authors:  Gary Aston-Jones; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 12.449

4.  Evaluating the effort expended to understand speech in noise using a dual-task paradigm: the effects of providing visual speech cues.

Authors:  Sarah Fraser; Jean-Pierre Gagné; Majolaine Alepins; Pascale Dubois
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2009-07-27       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Pupillary dilation as an index of task demands.

Authors:  Raúl Cabestrero; Antonio Crespo; Pilar Quirós
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  2009-12

6.  The Effect of Age on Listening Effort.

Authors:  Sofie Degeest; Hannah Keppler; Paul Corthals
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification.

Authors:  S Gatehouse; J Gordon
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1990-02

8.  How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort.

Authors:  Erin M Picou; Todd A Ricketts; Benjamin W Y Hornsby
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises.

Authors:  Jamie L Desjardins; Karen A Doherty
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Information processing vs pupil diameter.

Authors:  G K Poock
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  1973-12
View more
  22 in total

1.  Evaluating the sources and functions of gradiency in phoneme categorization: An individual differences approach.

Authors:  Efthymia C Kapnoula; Matthew B Winn; Eun Jong Kong; Jan Edwards; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Evidence for enhanced neural tracking of the speech envelope underlying age-related speech-in-noise difficulties.

Authors:  Lien Decruy; Jonas Vanthornhout; Tom Francart
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Verbal Response Times as a Potential Indicator of Cognitive Load During Conventional Speech Audiometry With Matrix Sentences.

Authors:  Hartmut Meister; Sebastian Rählmann; Ulrike Lemke; Jana Besser
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

4.  Characteristics of Real-World Signal to Noise Ratios and Speech Listening Situations of Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Wu; Elizabeth Stangl; Octav Chipara; Syed Shabih Hasan; Anne Welhaven; Jacob Oleson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Cognitive and Physiological Measures of Listening Effort During Degraded Speech Perception: Relating Dual-Task and Pupillometry Paradigms.

Authors:  Sarah Colby; Bob McMurray
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-09-07       Impact factor: 2.674

6.  Perceived Listening Difficulty in the Classroom, Not Measured Noise Levels, Is Associated With Fatigue in Children With and Without Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Samantha J Gustafson; Stephen Camarata; Benjamin W Y Hornsby; Fred H Bess
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 1.636

7.  Listening Effort Measured in Adults with Normal Hearing and Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Ann E Perreau; Yu-Hsiang Wu; Bailey Tatge; Diana Irwin; Daniel Corts
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  A Potential Bias in Subjective Ratings of Mental Effort.

Authors:  Travis M Moore; Erin M Picou
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 9.  Hearing and speech processing in midlife.

Authors:  Karen S Helfer; Alexandra Jesse
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Efficacy and Effectiveness of Advanced Hearing Aid Directional and Noise Reduction Technologies for Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Wu; Elizabeth Stangl; Octav Chipara; Syed Shabih Hasan; Sean DeVries; Jacob Oleson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.